Fill Af Form a, download blank or editable online. Sign, fax and printable from PC, iPad, tablet or mobile with PDFfiller ✓ Instantly ✓ No software. Try Now!. CIVILIAN RATING OF RECORD. (Please read Privacy Act Statement on reverse before completing this form.) EMPLOYEE (Last Name, First, Middle Initial). SSN. Examples of Air Force Form A, CIVILIAN RATING OF RECORD, bullets.

Author: Tygonos Yosho
Country: India
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Art
Published (Last): 7 May 2005
Pages: 406
PDF File Size: 1.14 Mb
ePub File Size: 9.92 Mb
ISBN: 133-6-86495-902-5
Downloads: 91931
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Kazrazahn

In her appraisal for the April March period, Fallaw gave Richardson exactly the same ratings as in the previous year with respect to each of the critical and noncritical performance elements. Motivation 8660a is an ultimate fact that will be analyzed later in this decision. Her occupational status within that job title is “aircraft structural repair technician.

Richardson questioned Fallaw about why was rated “Met” and not “Exceeded” on a critical performance element called “Communications Discipline” G. Richardson then asked her what the comment referred to. This “lowering” of her score is the basis of the complaint in this case. Richardson asked Fallaw whether this related to her Union position.

Fallaw cited reports she received from working-level supervisors that they were afraid to put Richardson on jobs that had deadlines.

This unfair labor practice case is before from Authority on zf to the attached decision of the Administrative Law Judge filed by the General Counsel. Her military status is that of Technical Sergeant, and her job title is “aircraft structural maintenance journeyman” G. However, there is insufficient basis for inferring that the ratings were motivated by Richardson’s protected activities. The Authority has found a prima facie showing of forn where the appraising supervisor, in comments to the appraised employee, connected the employee’s protected activities with the performance that was being evaluated, U.

AF Form 860A Example Bullets

Richardson also serves as the elected executive vice-president of the Charging Party the Unionits woman’s coordinator, and its shop steward for the “Fabrication Flight” plant. You are here Home U. Similarly, it is not to be presumed that Fallaw consciously “lowered” Richardson’s numerical scores, or that, absent antiunion motivation, her assessment of Richardson’s performance must have remained the same from year to year.


Counsel for the General Counsel and for Respondent filed post-hearing fprm.

Find a listing of all of the FLRA’s current job openings. The Authority is not to substitute its judgment for that of the rater. Click here for more information. However, “[t]he mere fact that. At some point a regulatory change required that the person in Fallaw’s position serve as the rating official although she did not work as closely with Richardson as the immediate working-level supervisors did Tr.

Thanks for your contributions.

Air Force Form A Example Bullets

For example, there is good reason to believe that the relatively low scores for “Working Relationships” and “Communications” were influenced by Fallaw’s dislike of the manner in which Richardson interacted with her on work-related matters.

Wagner placed marks at the extreme “needs little or no improvement” end of the lines for 21 performance categories and placed marks near the end of the line for 4 other subcategories. In the two years preceding her first appraisal from Fallaw, Richardson had received overall performance ratings of Excellent and no numerical scores on the appraisal factors below 8.

Childers’ recommended appraisal form was not available at the time of the hearing and presumably had been destroyed. The appraisal raters had been the immediate supervisors who assigned and evaluated Richardson’s work. Richardson asked Fallaw if the last sentence had anything to do with her union activity. Fallaw testified that Major Daley had no jurisdiction in that matter. In the instant case, there is no direct evidence of antiunion animus on the part of the appraising supervisor.

Nor does an antiunion explanation cry out for acceptance in these circumstances.

The reason is close at hand. She also perceived that Richardson underperformed with respect to facilitating the continuity of work on each of her projects by those replacing her on the next work shift.


Smith has developed a streamlined process for completing shift turn over within his shop -He created several post deployment financial reimbursements worksheets -Nuclear certified equipment monitor guaranteed Zero Defects in wing weapons safety inspection -He always ready to step up and help other shops get the job done -Constantly a go to technician for hydraulic system information across the maintenance group -Mr.

Richardson asked again whether the “Met” ratings on some of the “performance elements” were due to her union activities, and Fallaw said again that they were not. The score of “7” for “Adaptability to Work” was no higher because of some reports to Fallaw of occasions when Richardson had failed to wear the proper clothing or safety equipment in certain areas where they were required.

The appraisal form used for employees such as Richardson, AF Form A, contains spaces for two sets of ratings. On April 16,Richardson received her first performance appraisal from Fallaw. Robins55 FLRA at “[H]ad a prima facie showing of discrimination been established, a more thorough evaluation and analysis of Respondent’s affirmative defenses would have been necessary.

Richardson’s civilian and military positions require substantially the same skills and functions. Such a change is somewhat inconsistent with a plan to retaliate against Richardson, and supports the view that Fallaw called her own shots without any predisposition.

Civilian Appraisals

The final “appraisal factor” on which Richardson’s score dropped in was “Work Management. Had Fallaw’s explanations for such changes been patently baseless, or had the scores fallen more precipitously than could reasonably be accounted for by these explanations, a stronger case might be made for a “pretext” finding, and no greater showing might have been necessary in order to establish a prima facie case.

Therefore, that possibility cannot support an affirmative inference.

work_outlinePosted in Travel